If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Phalanger: Stuffing PHP With Mono, .NET

03-05-2012, 02:20 PM

Phoronix: Phalanger: Stuffing PHP With Mono, .NET

The last time that Mono was talked about on Phoronix, which is a re-implementation of Microsoft's .NET platform for Linux and other operating systems, was when Miguel de Icaza was calling for more Mono-based C# games. This time around, Miguel is highlighting Mono when it comes to Phalanger, a .NET-based PHP implementation...

Comment

You guys are still fear-mongering bigoted morons. Miguel likes and believes in the technology. It's GOOD technology. The language is best-in-class for its target markets. Literally, there is no other language, from any other company or Open project, that simultaneously offers the same features, compatibility, tooling, and performance as Mono does. Developers love C# because it's an amazing language, not because of evil plots.

No, neither C++ nor D are comparable to C#. No, neither is Java. Python absolutely has nothing on it. The only _languages_ that compete with C# in the places that C# excels are things like IronPython, Boo, and other languages that are still .NET-based. C++ is far too low-level for many of the kinds of things C# excels at, D is missing various great C# features and is lacking the common runtime environment and vast array of libraries that .NET offers, Java is under more threat of patent litigation than Mono ever was (Oracle has already actually sued people over it, even after the GPL'd release of Java), and Python is a scripting language that is totally unsuitable for writing offline applications of the size and scale that C#/C++/Java/etc. are routinely used for.

While it certainly would have been possible to implement a Mono-like engine that has all the same features and capabilities and performance but zero compatibility with .NET in order to assuage the bigoted anti-Microsofters while still bringing Linux app development into the 21st centruy, there would have been little to no _real_ benefit to eschewing that compatibility. Again, if Microsoft has patents that can outright kill Mono, they can kill _any_ modern high-level runtime (PyPy, the JavaScript runtimes, newer Java advances, LLVM, and so on would all likely be killed off if such patents exist and were brought to bear). If Microsoft has patents that specifically target their C#/.NET implementation, then Mono most likely doesn't even run afoul of them, and if it does it can just change implementation once made aware of the patents (and then we're at the case of having an incompatible work-alike, which is worse but better than nothing).

So long as there's no reason to think that Mono does infringe on any real and enforceable patents (and there isn't), there's also no reason to give up the benefits of .NET compatibility, such as the ability to "port" a large variety of what would otherwise be Windows-only applications to Linux. The existence of ASP.NET on Mono is such an example, where the ASP.NET coders are going to be ASP.NET coders and the choice of using Linux and other Free software is entirely secondary to being able to use their development environment of choice.

Last but not least, think of the tools like MonoDevelop. It's not as nice as Microsoft's VS C#/VB IDE, but it's beyond comparison with the other Free IDEs. Specifically because of C# and the fact that the language was designed to be easy to tool and easy to integrate with an IDE, unlike C++ or any dynamic language (the former of which is incredibly difficult to tool even with libraries like libclang, and the latter of which is literally impossible to tool the same way by the very definition of how the languages work). The tools for C# and .NET in general are a very large part of the reason why C# became so incredibly popular. You certainly can't claim that C# is only popular because of a plot by Microsoft, given that plenty of Microsoft's other products have flopped despite having billions pumped into them (Vista, the original tablets before the iPad, Zune, and possibly even the Windows Phone are just four obvious examples).

Comment

Shut your pie hole mate, and give me a break, people don't start their projects thinking which lang offers everything that c#'s got. I once started learning D2 and it was amazing but there was no easy to install compiler. I'm into Java for a lot of time and C# is just a better Java VM/language implementation, so give me a break about your logic. More over, D and Vala have a huge advantage since they don't need the VM middle man which eats memory and CPU cycles any time you start a program, not to mention the VM is another source for crashing your app. Really, if you think you've got the higher ground to tell us what to think and to insult us - take a hike, moron.

Comment

Shut your pie hole mate, and give me a break, people don't start their projects thinking which lang offers everything that c#'s got. I once started learning D2 and it was amazing but there was no easy to install compiler. I'm into Java for a lot of time and C# is just a better Java VM/language implementation, so give me a break about your logic. More over, D and Vala have a huge advantage since they don't need the VM middle man which eats memory and CPU cycles any time you start a program, not to mention the VM is another source for crashing your app. Really, if you think you've got the higher ground to tell us what to think and to insult us - take a hike, moron.

Are you really complaining about bad performance of managed languages right after a benchmark showing performance gains? VM crashing your app? It's exactly for the opposite purpose! You sound way too ignorant to be taken seriously Managed code was invented to ease development. It requires memory? No shit! Buy some, it's MUCH cheaper than paying a programmer for twice the time. You could write apps in ASM, coz that's the most efficient, but no, you just don't have time for that. Welcome the the 21st century, mate.